8 ms·

As much as I don't want jobs taken away by AI, a creative person with a vision that would usually required $1 million budget, could create such a video using AI

As much as I don't want jobs taken away by AI, a creative person with a vision that would usually required $1 million budget, could create such a video using AI by being very specific in what they require which would not be a " grey goo of the average of every concept " eg. "scene 32, same 2 characters from the previous scene, now dressed in the garb of Egyption middle kingdom high priests, though with cat faces, dancing on the back of an elephant that is running fast with blurred feet on the surface of a river with licks of water that burst from the water in time with the music that I gave you before, length of song for this clip 2:21 to 2:31" Your mind is your limit. AI is a tool. If you tell it "create me a music video for this song set in egypt" then it may turn out AI sloppy.

spaqin 2mo ago
Art isn't just the screenplay, or a prompt; it's the clash between reality and the intent (whether a location or practical set constraints), the individual skill of everyone involved, costume and prop department. And it may change during production. And effort. If it's easy, it's easily reproducible and not worth that much. And novelty, that's something current models aren't capable of. That's why Jarimoquai's Virtual Insanity video became popular. That's why practical effects are more impressive than CGI, even if they're jankier and hide behind clever camerawork.
- f6v 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - doitright99 2mo ago
    Your code is slop. Probably was before as well. At least now it's consistent slop.
    - f6v 2mo ago
      I don’t think I care about that all that much as long as the code does what I need.
  - spuz 2mo ago
    The problem with this discussion is we are conflating artistic value with economic value. A music video can be valuable as art, but it can also be valuable as a tool for promotion or for generating revenue. If the goal is pure economic efficiency then an AI has the potential to create a music video more efficiently than a human. If the goal is to produce something that makes people feel some kind of emotion then AI will work against you. The same goes for code. I use AI to write code that I'm not precious about but if I want to feel proud of my work, you can be sure I'll write it by hand.
    - simianwords 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - sanitycheck 2mo ago
        Given that all serious artists seem to be extremely anti-AI, I strongly suspect that you may be wrong. I've been trying Fable for coding in the past week and while it's incrementally better than Opus sometimes, what it's churning out is still far from art - and I do think it's possible for code to be art.
        pcthrowaway 2mo ago
        If you're defining "serious artists" as some approximation of "people who have made money with their art" then it's clear that there's a conflict of interest here. Now I happen to be in the camp that believes that AI on its own isn't really capable of producing art (but like a human creating a collage, there can be art created by humans using AI... there is artistic merit in the arrangement). I still despise that AI is going to be used to strip creators of their labour value, but that's more related to my objection to capitalism than it is to AI.
        sanitycheck 2mo ago
        I'm simply defining serious artists as people who are serious about their art, whether they're award winning filmmakers or amateur photographers. Roughly nobody out of all those people wants to use AI. (If you want to define it as professional artists instead, then I don't even see much of a conflict of interest. Professional programmers tend to be cautiously optimistic about the new tool and are finding uses for it, why wouldn't professional artists? But, they largely do not see it that way.)
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pydry 2mo ago
    I don't rememeber that sentiment being expressed much in the past about programming. I do notice a lot more bugs these days, a lot more slop code and a lot more complaints about slop code.
  - brador 2mo ago
    Do you feel your coding skills atrophying as you write less code? Do you plan to mitigate that or just let them slide?
    - f6v 2mo ago
      I feel like I've been doing less and less programming as I've become more senior. And that's been a good thing for me, I wouldn't want to go back to doing all the code myself. The perfect amount of hands-on programming is probably zero for me at this point.
  - sarchertech 2mo ago
    No one ever said anything remotely like that about software development 10 years ago.
  - fatata123 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - krater23 2mo ago
    They have the same sentiment also now. I expect when you not write code at all you aren't more productive than before or producing unmaintainable shit. Sorry bro, most of the time it needs more text to explain the AI which small fault she has done compared with just fixing it self. So when you don't code at all, you either lose time by explaining this issues a guy that never learns or you just ignore them.
    - f6v 2mo ago
      > you aren't more productive than before or producing unmaintainable shit. That's a very strong statement with virtually zero argumentation.
- simianwords 2mo ago
  I think you are making the same mistake as everyone else with respect to art. Art has nothing to do with _mechanical_ difficulty. I see this misconception all the time. Examples - Kumail Nanjiani roided up for his next movie. This has mechanical difficulty, sure. But what does it add to the artistic element? - Dream Theatre guitarists play olympics with their guitar and play solo's that are mechanically impossible for normal people. Yet we still find Beatles have more artistic value, why? I hope this popular misconception will die down. I don't want mechanical difficulty in art being praised. I feel these are things people hold on to because mechanical difficulty has some moat and people don't want to give it up.
  - gilleain 2mo ago
    I partly agree with you - I used to think of mechanical difficulty as a kind of 'proof of work' for art. Nowadays I am less interested in the idea of what counts as art or not. However, consider works like photorealistic drawings of eyes (usually at a very large scale). A lot of people like these, and consider them to be fine art, while others (art critics?) consider them bland. Contrast that with a Picasso flamingo drawn with a single line. There is artistic value in high-effort, low concept works as well as low-'effort', high-concept works and other combinations. Perhaps what we are all looking for is effort of some kind (I prefer human effort) whether that is conceptual effort or practice in drawing lines on paper.
    - simianwords 2mo ago
      I’m curious to understand why you think drawing photorealistic eyes is different from a person beating a Guitar Hero time record. Both are pushing boundaries in mechanical dexterity. Yet one is considered art and another is not.
      - gilleain 2mo ago
        If I was feeling unfair I would say there is no difference! However, if a friend drew me an eye on A3 paper would I frame it? Probably yes... Others have said this better, but art is an qualitative/emotional thing, not a simply measurable quantity of an object. We tend to use the effort put in as a proxy measure for quality, but when photocopiers and 3D printers and - yes - genAI get involved, that becomes harder or impossible. Beating Guitar Hero is emotional, but not artistic. Photorealistic drawings could be emotional, and may or may not be artistic. Putting a text prompt into a generative model to make a (frankly terrible) music video for $100 is ... something else.
- neonstatic 2mo ago
  > Art isn't just the screenplay, or a prompt; it's the clash between reality and the intent Okay, clanker
- perching_aix 2mo ago
  A notable chunk of criticism GenAI receives has to do with output irreproducibility and semantic instability relative to the input, so this is a bit entertaining to read. If there's a way to do something better and worse, then one can absolutely talk about added and absent value. I browse AI generated images a ton, and the difference between beginner / low effort submissions and high effort / advanced submissions is very stark.
  - timacles 2mo ago
    Yeah one thing people aren’t really grasping with a generative AI is that it fundamentally can’t produce the same thing twice. You can’t really create top notch art with all kinds of inconsistencies
    - perching_aix 2mo ago
      Not fundamentally, no. It is entirely possible to keep putting in the same thing, and then getting out the same thing. To be honest, it's outright frustrating that this feature is so often neglected.
- jcelerier 2mo ago
  > it's the clash between reality and the intent (whether a location or practical set constraints), the individual skill of everyone involved, costume and prop department That's not art, that's the limitations that everyone working in this industry have been working night and day to overcome for hundreds of years
- 59percentmore 2mo ago
  If you've ever tried to get around Gemini or ChatGPT's guardrails, stock footage poisoning, and just general tendency to produce the most frustratingly banal version of your prompt possible, then you would understand that prompting AI images and video absolutely already involves a clash between reality and intent (in the sense that this is Google and OpenAI's world, we're just living in it). I would love to get around the "individual skill" part, but all of my artist friends would excommunicate me if they knew the AI projects I've been working on, let alone if I asked them to collaborate.
  - ryandrake 2mo ago
    > If you've ever tried to get around Gemini or ChatGPT's guardrails, stock footage poisoning Art is (often) provocative, uncomfortable, taboo, explicit, subversive, or challenging of norms. You're never going to get that out of increasingly locked-down and Disney-fied BigTech hosted LLMs obsessed with "AI safety."
    - 59percentmore 2mo ago
      So, would you agree that working creatively around the Disney-fied locking-down of those tools in order to produce something "provocative, uncomfortable, taboo, explicit, subversive, or challenging of norms" would at least begin to approach being a process that involved at least a semblance of artistic merit? Because I can assure you that much of what I've gen'd checks those boxes (unless Sorry To Bother You's third-act twist no longer unsettles).
      - 59percentmore 2mo ago
        Note that he simply downvoted me. I refuse to believe that it's because equisapiens no longer shock.
        hmry 2mo ago
        FYI it's not possible to downvote replies to your own comment
qnleigh 2mo ago
I would really love to see examples of creatives using modern AI/LLMs to make quality art, and it feels like this should be happening, but I can't think of any examples yet. Maybe there's so much low-effort slop that the good works are lost in the noise. Or maybe most artists don't use AI on principle. I would love to see examples if anyone has any. I saw a few things on r/AIVideos that I sort of liked, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them quality art.
- ChrisGreenHeur 2mo ago
  When it happens they won’t tell you about it
- chhxdjsj 2mo ago
  The suno produced AI world cup country songs were far more exciting and viral than any of the “real” slop produced by the event https://youtube.com/shorts/xWziEfQxkyo?si=UEzIzVeUUFXEZvCS https://youtube.com/shorts/xWziEfQxkyo?si=UEzIzVeUUFXEZvCS
  - marysol5 2mo ago
    They really slap for Social Media, but not real life.
- flir 2mo ago
  Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/@Gossip.Goblin https://www.youtube.com/@Gossip.Goblin He (they?) have a vision, and are trying to get it on the screen via AI tools. I don't think the tools are quite there yet, so I wouldn't call it "quality art", but I think it shows the direction of travel, and it shows somebody trying to use those tools to say something (ironically, the message is that the tools are kinda bad news). I'm reminded of the tipping point when a generation of bedroom producers got tools "good enough" that they didn't need studio time any more. We got some creative music and a lot of slop out of that change. But hey, 80% of everything is crap, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
  - camillomiller 2mo ago
watwut 2mo ago
This is not about jobs taken away by AI. There are not that many jobs for artists to begin with. And OP was not talking about a job. > Your mind is your limit. AI is a tool. Then the companies should start talking about them the same way as they talk about tools. Because when they are pushing for artists replacement by AI, they are not talking about tools. They are trying to make AI into a person while very intentionally devaluing things people actually like. > a creative person with a vision that would usually required $1 million budget, could create such a video using AI by being very specific in what they require which would not be a " grey goo of the average of every concept " How many $1 million budget music videos you look at? The sold vision of AI is to not be the tool you are talking about here. Yes, there is an alternative reality where these companies tried to make tools for artists, but it is not a reality we live in.
- doug_durham 2mo ago
  Most of the discussions I've read about AI is as a tool. There is a narrative being created that its all about replacing humans. I've not seen that outside of a view influencers.
cryo32 2mo ago
It's much simpler than that. If you can't afford a video then don't make one. A slop video for $100 will devalue your entire brand. People will question your music. There's a lot more value in just cutting some live performance videos together cheaply.
lelanthran 2mo ago
> eg. "scene 32, same 2 characters from the previous scene, now dressed in the garb of Egyption middle kingdom high priests, though with cat faces, dancing on the back of an elephant that is running fast with blurred feet on the surface of a river with licks of water that burst from the water in time with the music that I gave you before, length of song for this clip 2:21 to 2:31" No need to even be so detailed: "Make this an ancient egypt theme" would probably work.
camillomiller 2mo ago
Have you ever experienced real artistic process? Because each and every comment from -presumedly- tech people that follow along these lines above is inevitably proof that the author does not grok creative processes at all, and they assume it’s just another algorithmic endeavor, or a collation of serial inputs. This mentality is awful.
- geraldmcboing 2mo ago
  well said.
wvh 2mo ago
A lot of iconic scenes were at the discretion of the actors in those scenes. One wonders how much personality and complexity you can really get without the skills and idiosyncrasies of everybody in front of and behind the cameras on a real movie set. My point being there's a lot more complexity in not producing slop than it seems.
aprilthird2021 2mo ago
You're kinda right but it's exactly the ease of generation and the lack of time and money spent which makes people value AI output less. A fake Gauguin painting and a real one can be almost indistinguishable to the human eye. But only one is worth the big bucks. Everyone scoffs at the other (once told which is real and which is fake). Something similar might happen to AI where the requirement to disclose it becomes a signal that the creator has cheapened out
dhosek 2mo ago
There was an interesting recent 99% invisible episode about the creation of videos for Karaoke in the 90s, which talked about videos created on very low budgets for songs with tight constraints. Even adjusting for inflation, their budgets would be well below a million dollars by today’s standards (and some costs would likely be lower thanks to digital video removing the cost of purchasing and processing film stock and making editing cheaper).
ericmcer 2mo ago
The prompts would more be like: "The dancing and lip movement is still wildly out of time with the music"... "Ok now the dancing is even more out of sync with the beat"
throwforfeds 2mo ago
Sure, but it appears as if the LLM just doesn't understand dancing and rhythm. I don't know why, but an old music video by the band Jungle came to mind -- just a kid dancing, and while it definitely cost more than $100 I'm sure, it couldn't have been all that expensive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkDzNOgO3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkDzNOgO3U Edit: oh I remembered another, The Blaze said their first music video cost them $100 to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivZrL2znh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivZrL2znh0 and their follow up didn't cost a whole lot more they've also been on record saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54fea7wuV6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54fea7wuV6s
dr_kiszonka 2mo ago
I find video models very hard to steer. They can output amazing "shiny" things quickly, but if you want something very specific, you may need to spend days on it. It is not like sitting down with an artist and seeing how they make the exact changes you need in real time while also ensuring artistic cohesion. AI is obviously very useful, but perhaps not in the way people think. Two aspects I would like to see improved are instruction following and providing relevant feedback.

spaqin 2mo ago

Art isn't just the screenplay, or a prompt; it's the clash between reality and the intent (whether a location or practical set constraints), the individual skill of everyone involved, costume and prop department. And it may change during production. And effort. If it's easy, it's easily reproducible and not worth that much. And novelty, that's something current models aren't capable of. That's why Jarimoquai's Virtual Insanity video became popular. That's why practical effects are more impressive than CGI, even if they're jankier and hide behind clever camerawork.

f6v 2mo ago
[flagged]
- doitright99 2mo ago
  Your code is slop. Probably was before as well. At least now it's consistent slop.
  - f6v 2mo ago
    I don’t think I care about that all that much as long as the code does what I need.
- spuz 2mo ago
  The problem with this discussion is we are conflating artistic value with economic value. A music video can be valuable as art, but it can also be valuable as a tool for promotion or for generating revenue. If the goal is pure economic efficiency then an AI has the potential to create a music video more efficiently than a human. If the goal is to produce something that makes people feel some kind of emotion then AI will work against you. The same goes for code. I use AI to write code that I'm not precious about but if I want to feel proud of my work, you can be sure I'll write it by hand.
  - simianwords 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - sanitycheck 2mo ago
      Given that all serious artists seem to be extremely anti-AI, I strongly suspect that you may be wrong. I've been trying Fable for coding in the past week and while it's incrementally better than Opus sometimes, what it's churning out is still far from art - and I do think it's possible for code to be art.
      - pcthrowaway 2mo ago
        If you're defining "serious artists" as some approximation of "people who have made money with their art" then it's clear that there's a conflict of interest here. Now I happen to be in the camp that believes that AI on its own isn't really capable of producing art (but like a human creating a collage, there can be art created by humans using AI... there is artistic merit in the arrangement). I still despise that AI is going to be used to strip creators of their labour value, but that's more related to my objection to capitalism than it is to AI.
        sanitycheck 2mo ago
        I'm simply defining serious artists as people who are serious about their art, whether they're award winning filmmakers or amateur photographers. Roughly nobody out of all those people wants to use AI. (If you want to define it as professional artists instead, then I don't even see much of a conflict of interest. Professional programmers tend to be cautiously optimistic about the new tool and are finding uses for it, why wouldn't professional artists? But, they largely do not see it that way.)
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- pydry 2mo ago
  I don't rememeber that sentiment being expressed much in the past about programming. I do notice a lot more bugs these days, a lot more slop code and a lot more complaints about slop code.
- brador 2mo ago
  Do you feel your coding skills atrophying as you write less code? Do you plan to mitigate that or just let them slide?
  - f6v 2mo ago
    I feel like I've been doing less and less programming as I've become more senior. And that's been a good thing for me, I wouldn't want to go back to doing all the code myself. The perfect amount of hands-on programming is probably zero for me at this point.
- sarchertech 2mo ago
  No one ever said anything remotely like that about software development 10 years ago.
- fatata123 2mo ago
  [dead]
- krater23 2mo ago
  They have the same sentiment also now. I expect when you not write code at all you aren't more productive than before or producing unmaintainable shit. Sorry bro, most of the time it needs more text to explain the AI which small fault she has done compared with just fixing it self. So when you don't code at all, you either lose time by explaining this issues a guy that never learns or you just ignore them.
  - f6v 2mo ago
    > you aren't more productive than before or producing unmaintainable shit. That's a very strong statement with virtually zero argumentation.
simianwords 2mo ago
I think you are making the same mistake as everyone else with respect to art. Art has nothing to do with _mechanical_ difficulty. I see this misconception all the time. Examples - Kumail Nanjiani roided up for his next movie. This has mechanical difficulty, sure. But what does it add to the artistic element? - Dream Theatre guitarists play olympics with their guitar and play solo's that are mechanically impossible for normal people. Yet we still find Beatles have more artistic value, why? I hope this popular misconception will die down. I don't want mechanical difficulty in art being praised. I feel these are things people hold on to because mechanical difficulty has some moat and people don't want to give it up.
- gilleain 2mo ago
  I partly agree with you - I used to think of mechanical difficulty as a kind of 'proof of work' for art. Nowadays I am less interested in the idea of what counts as art or not. However, consider works like photorealistic drawings of eyes (usually at a very large scale). A lot of people like these, and consider them to be fine art, while others (art critics?) consider them bland. Contrast that with a Picasso flamingo drawn with a single line. There is artistic value in high-effort, low concept works as well as low-'effort', high-concept works and other combinations. Perhaps what we are all looking for is effort of some kind (I prefer human effort) whether that is conceptual effort or practice in drawing lines on paper.
  - simianwords 2mo ago
    I’m curious to understand why you think drawing photorealistic eyes is different from a person beating a Guitar Hero time record. Both are pushing boundaries in mechanical dexterity. Yet one is considered art and another is not.
    - gilleain 2mo ago
      If I was feeling unfair I would say there is no difference! However, if a friend drew me an eye on A3 paper would I frame it? Probably yes... Others have said this better, but art is an qualitative/emotional thing, not a simply measurable quantity of an object. We tend to use the effort put in as a proxy measure for quality, but when photocopiers and 3D printers and - yes - genAI get involved, that becomes harder or impossible. Beating Guitar Hero is emotional, but not artistic. Photorealistic drawings could be emotional, and may or may not be artistic. Putting a text prompt into a generative model to make a (frankly terrible) music video for $100 is ... something else.
neonstatic 2mo ago
> Art isn't just the screenplay, or a prompt; it's the clash between reality and the intent Okay, clanker
perching_aix 2mo ago
A notable chunk of criticism GenAI receives has to do with output irreproducibility and semantic instability relative to the input, so this is a bit entertaining to read. If there's a way to do something better and worse, then one can absolutely talk about added and absent value. I browse AI generated images a ton, and the difference between beginner / low effort submissions and high effort / advanced submissions is very stark.
- timacles 2mo ago
  Yeah one thing people aren’t really grasping with a generative AI is that it fundamentally can’t produce the same thing twice. You can’t really create top notch art with all kinds of inconsistencies
  - perching_aix 2mo ago
    Not fundamentally, no. It is entirely possible to keep putting in the same thing, and then getting out the same thing. To be honest, it's outright frustrating that this feature is so often neglected.
jcelerier 2mo ago
> it's the clash between reality and the intent (whether a location or practical set constraints), the individual skill of everyone involved, costume and prop department That's not art, that's the limitations that everyone working in this industry have been working night and day to overcome for hundreds of years
59percentmore 2mo ago
If you've ever tried to get around Gemini or ChatGPT's guardrails, stock footage poisoning, and just general tendency to produce the most frustratingly banal version of your prompt possible, then you would understand that prompting AI images and video absolutely already involves a clash between reality and intent (in the sense that this is Google and OpenAI's world, we're just living in it). I would love to get around the "individual skill" part, but all of my artist friends would excommunicate me if they knew the AI projects I've been working on, let alone if I asked them to collaborate.
- ryandrake 2mo ago
  > If you've ever tried to get around Gemini or ChatGPT's guardrails, stock footage poisoning Art is (often) provocative, uncomfortable, taboo, explicit, subversive, or challenging of norms. You're never going to get that out of increasingly locked-down and Disney-fied BigTech hosted LLMs obsessed with "AI safety."
  - 59percentmore 2mo ago
    So, would you agree that working creatively around the Disney-fied locking-down of those tools in order to produce something "provocative, uncomfortable, taboo, explicit, subversive, or challenging of norms" would at least begin to approach being a process that involved at least a semblance of artistic merit? Because I can assure you that much of what I've gen'd checks those boxes (unless Sorry To Bother You's third-act twist no longer unsettles).
    - 59percentmore 2mo ago
      Note that he simply downvoted me. I refuse to believe that it's because equisapiens no longer shock.
      - hmry 2mo ago
        FYI it's not possible to downvote replies to your own comment

qnleigh 2mo ago

I would really love to see examples of creatives using modern AI/LLMs to make quality art, and it feels like this should be happening, but I can't think of any examples yet. Maybe there's so much low-effort slop that the good works are lost in the noise. Or maybe most artists don't use AI on principle. I would love to see examples if anyone has any. I saw a few things on r/AIVideos that I sort of liked, but I wouldn't go as far as to call them quality art.

ChrisGreenHeur 2mo ago
When it happens they won’t tell you about it
chhxdjsj 2mo ago
The suno produced AI world cup country songs were far more exciting and viral than any of the “real” slop produced by the event https://youtube.com/shorts/xWziEfQxkyo?si=UEzIzVeUUFXEZvCS https://youtube.com/shorts/xWziEfQxkyo?si=UEzIzVeUUFXEZvCS
- marysol5 2mo ago
  They really slap for Social Media, but not real life.
flir 2mo ago
Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/@Gossip.Goblin https://www.youtube.com/@Gossip.Goblin He (they?) have a vision, and are trying to get it on the screen via AI tools. I don't think the tools are quite there yet, so I wouldn't call it "quality art", but I think it shows the direction of travel, and it shows somebody trying to use those tools to say something (ironically, the message is that the tools are kinda bad news). I'm reminded of the tipping point when a generation of bedroom producers got tools "good enough" that they didn't need studio time any more. We got some creative music and a lot of slop out of that change. But hey, 80% of everything is crap, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
- camillomiller 2mo ago

watwut 2mo ago

This is not about jobs taken away by AI. There are not that many jobs for artists to begin with. And OP was not talking about a job. > Your mind is your limit. AI is a tool. Then the companies should start talking about them the same way as they talk about tools. Because when they are pushing for artists replacement by AI, they are not talking about tools. They are trying to make AI into a person while very intentionally devaluing things people actually like. > a creative person with a vision that would usually required $1 million budget, could create such a video using AI by being very specific in what they require which would not be a " grey goo of the average of every concept " How many $1 million budget music videos you look at? The sold vision of AI is to not be the tool you are talking about here. Yes, there is an alternative reality where these companies tried to make tools for artists, but it is not a reality we live in.

doug_durham 2mo ago
Most of the discussions I've read about AI is as a tool. There is a narrative being created that its all about replacing humans. I've not seen that outside of a view influencers.

cryo32 2mo ago

It's much simpler than that. If you can't afford a video then don't make one. A slop video for $100 will devalue your entire brand. People will question your music. There's a lot more value in just cutting some live performance videos together cheaply.

lelanthran 2mo ago

> eg. "scene 32, same 2 characters from the previous scene, now dressed in the garb of Egyption middle kingdom high priests, though with cat faces, dancing on the back of an elephant that is running fast with blurred feet on the surface of a river with licks of water that burst from the water in time with the music that I gave you before, length of song for this clip 2:21 to 2:31" No need to even be so detailed: "Make this an ancient egypt theme" would probably work.

camillomiller 2mo ago

Have you ever experienced real artistic process? Because each and every comment from -presumedly- tech people that follow along these lines above is inevitably proof that the author does not grok creative processes at all, and they assume it’s just another algorithmic endeavor, or a collation of serial inputs. This mentality is awful.

geraldmcboing 2mo ago
well said.

wvh 2mo ago

A lot of iconic scenes were at the discretion of the actors in those scenes. One wonders how much personality and complexity you can really get without the skills and idiosyncrasies of everybody in front of and behind the cameras on a real movie set. My point being there's a lot more complexity in not producing slop than it seems.

aprilthird2021 2mo ago

You're kinda right but it's exactly the ease of generation and the lack of time and money spent which makes people value AI output less. A fake Gauguin painting and a real one can be almost indistinguishable to the human eye. But only one is worth the big bucks. Everyone scoffs at the other (once told which is real and which is fake). Something similar might happen to AI where the requirement to disclose it becomes a signal that the creator has cheapened out

dhosek 2mo ago

There was an interesting recent 99% invisible episode about the creation of videos for Karaoke in the 90s, which talked about videos created on very low budgets for songs with tight constraints. Even adjusting for inflation, their budgets would be well below a million dollars by today’s standards (and some costs would likely be lower thanks to digital video removing the cost of purchasing and processing film stock and making editing cheaper).

ericmcer 2mo ago

The prompts would more be like: "The dancing and lip movement is still wildly out of time with the music"... "Ok now the dancing is even more out of sync with the beat"

throwforfeds 2mo ago

Sure, but it appears as if the LLM just doesn't understand dancing and rhythm. I don't know why, but an old music video by the band Jungle came to mind -- just a kid dancing, and while it definitely cost more than $100 I'm sure, it couldn't have been all that expensive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkDzNOgO3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkDzNOgO3U Edit: oh I remembered another, The Blaze said their first music video cost them $100 to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivZrL2znh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivZrL2znh0 and their follow up didn't cost a whole lot more they've also been on record saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54fea7wuV6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54fea7wuV6s

dr_kiszonka 2mo ago

I find video models very hard to steer. They can output amazing "shiny" things quickly, but if you want something very specific, you may need to spend days on it. It is not like sitting down with an artist and seeing how they make the exact changes you need in real time while also ensuring artistic cohesion. AI is obviously very useful, but perhaps not in the way people think. Two aspects I would like to see improved are instruction following and providing relevant feedback.